https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191711 An incorporated lease map governed the boundary dispute, and the coal-bearing strip was found to fall within the respondents' leasehold because the deed plans were self-contained and consistent with the boundary descriptions; the attempted reliance on revenue records was rejected. In the limitation analysis, Article 48 of the Limitation Act, 1908 required suit within three years of the plaintiff's knowledge of possession, so the plaintiffs had to prove when they first learned of the encroachment; their evidence of discovery in 1941 was accepted and the plea of time bar failed. The concurrent finding that the remaining coal had become unworkable because of the statutory barrier requirement was also sustained. en-us Wed, 22 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191711 An incorporated lease map governed the boundary dispute, and the coal-bearing strip was found to fall within the respondents' leasehold because the deed plans were self-contained and consistent with the boundary descriptions; the attempted reliance on revenue records was rejected. In the limitation analysis, Article 48 of the Limitation Act, 1908 required suit within three years of the plaintiff's knowledge of possession, so the plaintiffs had to prove when they first learned of the encroachment; their evidence of discovery in 1941 was accepted and the plea of time bar failed. The concurrent finding that the remaining coal had become unworkable because of the statutory barrier requirement was also sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 22 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191711